Comments on: Congestion Panel Considers Shrinking Zone and Tolling Bridges

By: Erik Engquist

Erik Engquist — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:19:10 +0000

Using parking fees rather than congestion pricing to discourage car trips *within* the zone would not affect the feds' $354.5 million promise. The fees for crossing into the congestion zone would remain. What you'd lose is hundreds of cameras designed to charge cars $4 each for trips originating within the zone and not leaving it. If the commission finds it will cost $3 in overhead to collect every $4 in fees, it's going to find a cheaper way -- i.e., parking fees. That is what my story said; the Daily News just repeated it and included a mention of the $4 intra-zone fee that would be eliminated.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:47:28 +0000

The feds aren't giving NYC money for new highways or urban renewal housing projects. They're giving NYC money for new buses, ferries and a congestion pricing system that will, if all goes as planned, remove around 120,000 vehicles per day from city streets.

So, I think it's a pretty good question: Do the modifications currently being discussed by the Commission still qualify for the federal money?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:36:47 +0000

"will the feds still give New York City a $354.5 million grant for that?"

Please, please just stop using that logic. It is one of the worst possible justifications for any project. Sure, in this case, the federal government's interests are aligned with your pet project, but just think back to the 1950s, where the exact same phrase was used to argue for highways (which came with a 90% funding match from the federal government) over subways (which got the city no federal funding).

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:46:12 +0000

it would be too difficult to address every agency's concerns in an equitable way.

And some jurisdictions' concerns are so thoroughly based on fears, misinformation, misunderstanding, selfishness and intransigence (Hello, Riverdale!) that they don't deserve to be treated equitably. But that's what politics is all about, I guess.

By: Glenn McAnanama

Glenn McAnanama — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:41:55 +0000

Dan is 100% correct

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:17:44 +0000

I think the Kathryn Wilde comments are particularly insightful on how the CP proposal is a balancing act between the many agencies and jurisdictions involved. That was the original reason why I thought the plan would never be implemented: it would be too difficult to address every agency's concerns in an equitable way.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:12:45 +0000

The 60th Street idea would be terrible for the CBD. It's ironic that the people who have been the most vocal about a problem that doesn't exist, people going to 87th street and heading in by train, will cause that very fictional scenario to be made real at 60th street. Because if you work on 57th street and the zone starts at 60th street it really WOULD be in your interest to drive around the upper portion of midtown. Argggh.